Talk:Lidia Thorpe

Accuracy of quote

The article states that Thorpe's grandmother, Alma Thorpe, was one of the founders of the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service, citing the newspaper article: Greens MP Lidia Thorpe's long road from Nowa Nowa to Northcote, The Age, 19 November 2017. That statement may be inaccurate, however, since the newspaper article reads, Her grandmother, Alma Thorpe, set up the state's first Aboriginal health service. So which is it? One of the founders, or the (by implication, sole) founder? The article for Alma Thorpe (twice) states In 1973 Thorpe helped establish the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service (VAHS) but gives no inline reference for this statement. If Alma Thorpe was indeed one of the founders, as both Wikipedia articles state, we need a reliable source to that effect. But the Age article doesn't say that, so is not a good enough reference for this particular fact. But we may have a better one!

The article on Alma Thorpe is supported by a single reference to the inaugural Victorian Indigenous Honor Roll – a state Government publication – which says, in part: In 1973, she helped establish the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service (VAHS) in an old building in Fitzroy’s Gertrude Street.... Its creation was significant. After decades of marginalisation and institutional neglect, Aboriginal people were taking charge of their own interests. This spirit of self-determination led to several other Aboriginal-run organisations being established, all underpinned by what Alma called a spirit of ‘independence, integrity and land rights’. Alma poured all her energy into the Health Service. As her fellow founder and mentor, Dr Bruce McGuiness, put it, “Without Alma Thorpe there wouldn’t have been a health service.” The Service aimed to provide quality health and dental care to the Aboriginal community. From one doctor and a committed group of volunteers, it has grown to employ many staff across several sites around Melbourne. For Alma, the role of the Service was as much social as it was medical. It brought people together and gave them a sense of belonging. It built an awareness of health issues in the community that had not been there before. There was also a welfare component to her work, as Alma would help the men who lived in the suburb’s parks apply for benefits. Alma set up many initiatives through an offshoot of the VAHS known as the Mother Service. These include the Yappera Children’s Service, which provides child care, and a youth club and gym opened in 1977. The latter is now known as Melbourne Aboriginal Youth Sport and Recreation (MAYSAR)... ...and quite a bit more. The Victorian Indigenous Honour Roll is quite clear in calling Dr Bruce McGuiness her "fellow founder", so I will use this to improve the inline sourcing of the article for Alma, as well as directly in this article for Lidia Thorpe. yoyo (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, I now have an even better source, being the official government website for the 2011 Victorian Aboriginal Honour Roll (which I suspect may have been rebadged as Aboriginal rather than Indigenous by the Labor government, after it ousted the Liberal-National coalition from power). The previous source was a copy of the official government publication, held on a website supported by the Catholic Church; presumably the original publication is a better source. I've used it in the Alma Thorpe article, referring to it for each statement it directly supports. And will also use it here. yoyo (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

References

"Lidia Thorpe is an Australian senator"

The precedent for First Nations/Indigenous senators was that their nationality is not described as Australian, if they do not identify as such. Most news sources don't label Thorpe as Australian; instead labelling (if they do) their nationality as Gunnai-Gunditjmara [1]. As such, according to MOS:OPENPARABIO, we include the context of their nationality as Gunnai-Gunditjmara. Several editors have reverted this classification, and have edited the introduction of other Indigenous senators such as Pat Dodson to label their nationality as Australian. I'd like views from other editors to gain consensus of which option to choose, as to prevent an edit war. Catiline52 (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly I want to acknowledge that I am not speaking from a First Nations perspective here and am eager to hear such perspectives. But MOS:CONTEXTBIO (which expands on MOS:OPENPARABIO) makes it pretty clear that in the first sentence we should be giving their country of citizenship. Obviously the First Nations nationality should also be in the lead somewhere, preferably in the first paragraph. As for sources, given most of them are likely to be Australian and as such have no need to identify the nationality of other Australians, I'm not sure that actually tells us much. In Thorpe's case, though, we do have sources indicating she explicitly does not identify as Australian so an exception may be appropriate; this should not be extended to other articles unless they too have explicitly stated they do not identify as Australian. Frickeg (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If she is a member of the Australian Senate, then if she is saying that she is not an Australian citizen and holds loyalty to some other nation then she is claiming to be in breach of s44. She sounds like she has some difficulty with comprehension - but that's not rare for a politician. What do the Greens say about her nationality?

We mention Aboriginality in the dirst sentence in a few other bios of federal politicians. Notability is the criterion, and for someone like Neville Bonner that's what he was noted for. Lovely man, BTW. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Would rephrasing "an Australian independent politician. She has been a senator for Victoria since 2020" to "a politician who has represented Victoria in the Australian senate since 2020" avoid the Blak Sovereignty issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.195.161 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry

Without the photos, one would assume on reading this article that Thorpe is of entirely Indigenous Australian ancestry. I mean, it's very obvious from her appearance that she is of mostly European descent, and yet the article ignores that in a sort of Emperor's New Clothes fashion. Has anyone written about this? Any newspaper source continues this bizarre charade. I understand the long history of abuse and exclusion, but this is supposed to be a repository of facts. is there any info out there on who her father was? Sheila1988 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly a little confused by this comment. Many Indigenous Australians have a lot of European ancestry. That fact isn't notable or at all surprising. --2A00:23C6:CC00:2000:DCAB:6D70:B25C:9D80 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not only does she have majority of European ancestry, but her life experiences are completely that of a white woman. She has never lived an Aboriginal lifestyle among Aboriginal people, so calling her Aboriginal is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. 117.20.66.242 (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Please have a look at Australian Aboriginal identity. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's believed her father was of Scottish descent and her surname is British. Colliric (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Clan Corporation

I’ve just deleted the first sentence of the Early career section, which stated that she was managing director of Clan Corporation. Though this is stated in the Age citation, it cannot be true.

Clan Corporation was only ever a trading name of Lidia Thorpe. See https://abr.business.gov.au/AbnHistory/View/65868640208

So Clan Corporation was not a company, and this is confirmed by a Google search for “Clan Corporation Pty Ltd” - in parentheses. It gives no results. So she can never have been managing director of it. Whether there are any other RS’s saying she was MD of it is if no consequence, because it cannot possible be true. Wikipedia is not intended to carry untruths. Boscaswell talk 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the fact checking. Guess we could say "Thorpe was a sole trader under the business 'Clan Corporation'." citing the ABN source, though maybe that's too much of a primary source. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit of a moot point without more explanation/background of what it the business was. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ivar, I really wouldn’t recommend it. The Herald Sun RS, used elsewhere in the article, https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/greens-northcote-candidate-reveals-abusive-relationship-led-to-her-bankruptcy/news-story/0b53d6f348de3f5aaf783cf11c816d42 said this on 26.9.2017 (my italics):

" Ms Thorpe recently set up another business, called Clan Corporation, which she described as “not very active at the moment”.

If elected next month, the Greens candidate said she would wind up that business altogether. "

She was discharged from bankruptcy in late 2016, so could not have traded legally until then. It was “not very active” in September 2017. Was she ever trading as Clan Corporation? We don’t know. We do know that it can only ever have been for a very short period.Boscaswell talk 10:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

Clan Corporation remains a current business name of Lydia Thorpe, suggesting the business is still operating in some form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.120.246 (talk • contribs)

It suggests no such thing. It can equally easily suggest that she has simply not gotten round to cancelling it, or alternatively has merely decided to hold onto the name. She does have a strong feeling for Clans. Boscaswell talk 10:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Somehow or other the "managing director" words have crept back in. This cannot be true - re-read this whole section to understand why. I am deleting the para. about it, because it is clear that Clan Corporation is not ongoing, was only ever very short-term if at all, and in any case she can never have been managing director of it as it was never a company. Boscaswell talk 10:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

The summary of the article reads "Her political persona is outspoken, unorthodox and confrontational." I question the neutrality and objectivity of the article by painting such a partial depiction of Lidia Thorpe in the summary. 58.178.253.53 (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Stephanie921 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:58.178.253.53 it has been excised Stephanie921 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead mention of controversy

I will try to write this as NPOV as possible. @Leontrooper There isn't any discussion here, it's pretty annoying to go sifting through edit summaries. If you have any problems with what I've written let me know. Poketama (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit of two minutes ago was a good solution. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's more reasonable to place the "burden of proof" on the editor challenging the status quo. Please elaborate on your disagreement with the text and provide reliable and independent sources for your information. I have manually reverted your edits. Leontrooper (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you comment on here instead of Edit Summaries? Edit summaries are not for discussion. See: WP:REVTALK

"You're making it worse. There is nothing in the article about 'praise' or her being a businesswoman. Other Category:Indigenous Australian politicians are called Australian. Someone who holds elected office is not an 'activist'. It is not our problem if you're unwilling to take note of previous discussions. Please explain your disagreement on the talk page."

I added praise because you said it wasn't NPOV when I edited the criticism part, but sure I can get a source for that. There is plenty of information in the article about her being a businesswoman, including being involved with Pay the Rent and Clan Corporation. She was an activist before being a politician, but ok I can change that word? Please see the '"Lidia Thorpe is an Australian senator" section above where the use of Aboriginal vs Australian is discussed. Poketama (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The article you added does not say that, and the above discussion did not lead to a consensus to remove 'Australian'. Leontrooper (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"Responding to the event on Network 10's breakfast program, Narelda Jacobs declared the Djab Wurrung Gunnai Gunditjamara woman "staunch".

"I admire her for doing this," said the Whadjuk Noongar journalist." https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2022/08/02/senator-lidia-thorpe-makes-international-headlines-after-colonising-queen-oath

If you want the criticism in the lead, then you can have it balanced. It doesn't really need to be in the lead, we could strip it? If you want to keep completely undoing my edits though, I'll be taking it to dispute resolution. If you have a problem with one part, change that part. Poketama (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This website does not seem to be a reliable and neutral source. Some random people agreeing with her (which is going to be the case for any statement by any politician) does not warrant being equivalent to the real controversy. You're free to take it to dispute resolution, but you're the one who is clearly oblivious to standard Wikipedia practice. Leontrooper (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

SBS is one of the Australian national broadcasters, its pretty reliable. You still havn't explained why you are wiping the entire edit. Poketama (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The tone is clearly promotional. There is a consensus that the controversy should be in the lead section, and you came waltzing in here without taking note. See above for the other issues. Stop edit warring please. Leontrooper (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring I'm addressing your issues and editing them, not just reverting. Can you address what I've said already? She is a business woman its explained in the article and cited, I've cleaned up some formatting. Poketama (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree about the businesswoman stuff. First you created a false equivalence about the controversies, and you've removed it from the lead completely. Your other edits do not improve the lead either. Lead section should not contain refs, which you would know if you'd take note of WP practice. Leontrooper (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok I'm working on improving my editing, can you show me the policy about not including refs? And what do you mean it does not improve the lead? I think my edit makes the context clearer and more succinct, whereas at the moment it focuses only on one side of a criticism without context which I don't think is appropriate for a BLP. Poketama (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

We need sourcing for all thia stuff, especially for a BLP. I wonder why someone wants to say in wikivoice that she is an Aboriginal polititican. Is it because she doesn't look like one in the way that Penny Wong evidently has some Chinese ancestry? We tend not to mention ethnicity as the primary defining characteristic of federal politicians.[2] For notability I would say that she is best known for being a federal representative for the Greens and ethnicity and ancestry is not quite so important that it needs to be in the first sentence. --Pete (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion

AlanTheScientist (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Poketama)

Leontrooper added content to the lead about public criticism of Lidia Thorpe (BLP), I tried to clean up the phrasing of the overall lead and balance the criticism line to provide context, they have repeatedly reverted my edits without, I feel, constructive feedback.

Viewpoint by (Catiline52)

Rather than having a lead stating 'controversy', we just have a section stating she is the Greens Minister for X (First Nations & Republic), and is known for being outspoken her opinions on Y (Opposition to the Voice, Republicanism). Wikipedia has recently tended to adding too many 'controversies' attached to contemporary politicians as a reductionist way of covering issues. We don't have Turnbull listed as controversial for advocating for a republic, or Abbott for keeping the crown. People who were historically seen as 'controversial' within the media such as Jim Cairns aren't listed as being controversial for opposing the Vietnam war. This article also needs significant improvement; we highlight 'criticism' in the introduction while not even mentioning her opposition to the Voice to Parliament.

Rather than wordsmith exact wordings, how about we start the final intro paragraph with something like "Thorpe campaigns on Indigenous and postcolonial issues" [3]. Follow with her views on the Voice and Republicanism, and then highlight how those views have been criticised (by who?). Catiline52 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Leontrooper)

Poketama's description of events is incomplete and partially incorrect.

• My first edit was adding information on the swearing-in controversy and an interview of Thorpe. I simultaneously added a sentence to the lead section to summarize the (controversies listed in the) #Senate subsection. Subsequently, there was a back and forth with @Stephanie921: about this sentence, ultimately resulting in the most neutral wording possible.
• Poketama changed 'Australian' to 'Aboriginal' even though a discussion on the talk page did not lead to a consensus to change that. Poketama did not enter the discussion, just went ahead. Similarly flat-out refusing to read edit summaries to learn about the above discussion. @Skyring: addressed the nationality issue, but Poketama did not reply to his comment.
• Poketama changed the above-mentioned sentence to a purely promotional phrasing, also claiming 'praise' for Thorpe without any change in the main body or any ref added whatsoever.
• Poketama made other changes that only removed information. (Ex. "from 2017 to 2018" to "until 2018".)
• After my revert, Poketama largely reverted back, adding that Thorpe is an 'activist'. Someone who holds (a fulltime) elected office is not an activist.
• Then, Poketama dug up a website article with clearly promotional content to create a false (in my view) equivalence between support and opposition to Thorpe's actions/words. (Also adding a ref to the lead even though the lead follows the body.)
• Poketama then engaged in naked edit-warring.
• Poketama has consistently misrepresented issues on this talk page, including in her third opinion subsection.
• I strongly disagree with Cateline52's viewpoint. It is a fact that Thorpe has been the subject of (international) controversy, which goes beyond holding a minority opinion. Her idea would restore the promotional content.

My main point is that articles about controversial politicians should not create a false equivalence to give an illusion of neutrality. The main text should accurately reflect independent and reliable sources, the lead in turn should reflect that. "Controversy" is a difficult thing to deal with on Wikipedia, but it should not be deprecated completely. In any case there is no policy/community consensus to do so. Leontrooper (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion by AlanTheScientist

Thanks everyone for summarising the two main opinions here! I've carefully read your summaries, the discussion above and the edits. Thanks all for engaging in a healthy debate and for your opinions, they all are very valid - and I guess that's why it's sometimes hard to find a consensus. There's a lot happening so forgive me if I forgot anything. I will let you find a consensus together, I'm just here to give you an external opinion. I tried to break down the issue:

• Should the lead mention the swearing-in "controversy"? Yes, but probably not labelled as a controversy. I think it's a grey area but we should make the difference between controversial events and a controversy. I agree this event is important and controversial but I feel like we usually label things as "controversies" in leads when it's closer to a scandal (typically would last for months, there would be allegations of wrongdoings and there would even be investigations, etc. - see Boris Johnson) or where they are overall controversial figures (not for just one specific thing and supported by plenty of sources and analyses - see Silvio Berlusconi). We shouldn't use that every time someone disagrees with someone (because politicians spend their time disagreeing with each others haha, Wikipedia would be full of "controversies"!). In this case I don't think it's big enough to be labelled this way - I also don't think many newspapers called it that way (I've seen mainly articles explaining what happened and giving a couple of reactions). So I think the lead should just describe what happened objectively (what she campaigns for, what happened, what were the reactions to this locally and globally) without using the word "controversy" and let the readers make their own opinion. For some inspiration also see Donald Trump, the word "controversy" is never used in the lead but the description of events is enough (and I think we'll all agree he probably is more controversial).
• Should we use the term 'activist' in the lead? While I think she matches the exact definition of an activist ("a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change") I agree it would add confusion. Most people associate "activist" with NGOs and other movements - because she's an elected representative it probably would be more accurate to describe her as a politician and specify what she campaigns for. Also any politician could claim they're an activist (they all change the law) so it's not adding much and we shouldn't fall for PR strategies but report things neutrally. The rest of the article should describe any previous activism to truly reflect what she did before too.
• Should we use 'Australian' or 'Aboriginal' in the lead? Both, but more clearly and in the right order. For clarity, use the standard model of separating (1) the standard roles "Australian politician" and other official descriptions/positions and (2) in another sentence or paragraph specify "first Aboriginal senator from Victoria" as it's also very important and historical (see Barack Obama). Right now it's all mixed and not very clear.
• Should we mention 'businesswoman' in the lead? No. Clearly I see not supporting evidence of this and we don't mention (past) jobs of most politicians in the lead, unless they were known for this (e.g. Trump was a famous businessman before politics). Sounds just heavily promotional here. Some other bits of the article sound also a bit promotional so after you find a consensus about the lead I'd also suggest spending some time reviewing the rest of the article (e.g. it's nice to know that "she was very competitive" when playing football as a kid but it doesn't add value here and sounds like it was added because it looks good for her).
• What dates should we use in the lead? Either the exact dates ("YYYY-YYYY") or the beginning for ongoing roles ("since YYYY"). Looks like it's what we use everywhere else, I don't see why not here (it's removing some of the most important details).

My suggestion based on all this: if you feel like the 5 suggestions above are reasonable you could update the lead this way an then keep working on improving the article. Remember, a consensus is rarely perfect but allows us to move forward so we can all spend more time working on this article and other ones :) AlanTheScientist (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Stephanie921

Leon has pinged me to describe how I had issues with how the lead summised reaction to Thorpe's political views. When I edited the page to express my problems, Leon and I worked together to improve the morphology as much as possible via multiple revisions, which resulted in the current wording. I am going to share our teamwork for the sake of Alan and Poketama. But I am not stating my thoughts on the current dispute, since that would unfairly interfere as Alan has kindly offered to give a third opinion.

1. Diff 1: Special:Diff/1101911053 - @User:58.178.253.53 writes that they question the neutrality of the article because of how that lead line portrayed Thorpe.

2. Diff 2: Special:Diff/1101963644 A few hours later, I - having not seen IP 58's talk message - remove the line because I have the same criticisms.

3. Diff 3: Special:Diff/1101964100: I respond to IP 58 on the talk page and tell them I agree.

4. Diff 4: Special:Diff/1101970306: Leon agrees that there were problems with their original wording. They reword the sentence and insert it back into the lead, saying it's important enough to be in the lead. They also think this version is an improvement cos it's sourced, unlike the original wording which had no references (although they were in the body).

5. Diff 5: Special:Diff/1101970978: I still have the same criticisms as last time, so I rephrase the sentence. However, I agree that it deserves to be in the lead.

6. Diff 6: Special:Diff/1101971983: I change "attracted" to "been the subject of" cos I think attracted isn't neutral.

7. Diff 7: Special:Diff/1101975510: Leon decides to expand the sentence for specificity in order to describe what Thorpe's political beliefs are. I send thanks to Leon three minutes later for this. Leon otherwise doesn't raise any issues with how the sentence is worded, and the phrasing is not changed by them, me, or anyone else.

8. Diff 8: Special:Diff/1101991084: I tell I.P. 58 that the original phrasing has been excised.

9. Diff 9: Special:Diff/1102011971: @User:Laterthanyouthink removes the citations from the lead because they're unnecessary, and I send thanks to them for this Stephanie921 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I am having a break from Wikipedia for the rest of the day so u can ping me and talk with me here but I won't respond till tomorrow Stephanie921 (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Stephanie921! Definitely helpful :) AlanTheScientist (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your contributions this has been very pleasant! Leontrooper thanks for sharing your POV, I think a lot of disputes come from trouble communicating so I'm happy to hear your feedback. I'm happy for us to implement Alan's points. I think that using Aboriginal vs Australian is quite tricky and honestly not worth fighting about atm, maybe a guidelines project for another time. I think they shouldn't be noted as Australian in the lead because they dont identify as such, but I'm happy for now to have that fact included in the body. Poketama (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

She cannot be a federal MP unless she is Australian due to the operation of s44. Describing her as Aboriginal is accurate and well-sourced but not notable in the way that Senator Neville Bonner was, due to being the first Aboriginal Australian MP. We've had numerous other Indigenous MPs since Bonner in 1971, and this has become unremarkable in the way that nobody jumps up and down about women or atheist or LGBT+ folk being elected. Again, I mention Penny Wong: female and gay but we don't mention this in the opening sentence. --Pete (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both! I agree "Australian" is not an option. Nationality is one of the rare things one can't just self identify as. The article could expand on her views if it's sourced and notable but the lead should clearly reflect her nationality. And fine to leave "Aboriginal" out of the lead (but still in the article) for now so we reach a consensus as this was not the main blocker here. It can be discussed later. AlanTheScientist (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried to edit the lead in line with your analysis, lets see how that goes. Poketama (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Protests

She and many others burnt the Union Jack this month! Why is this not mentioned?150.101.89.147 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If you can source it add it... I had a look and couldn't find any evidence of her burning a flag. Poketama (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Bit of a stretch: a flag was burned in Brisbane, and Thorpe attended a protest in Melbourne (according to 2GB). That "connection" is so tenuous it's certainly not worth mentioning in a BLP. --Canley (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

How about that bullying incident?

That's what she's known for, why isn't it mentioned in the article? Budgewoi (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC) https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/leaked-email-reveals-greens-staffer-scared-and-in-shock-after-lidia-thorpe-s-truly-awful-outburst-20220905-p5bfdn.html

https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/09/28/greens-lidia-thorpe-bullying-allegations/ Budgewoi (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No, that's obviously NOT what she's known for. More specifically, the first source there speaks of "claims". The second has the word "allegations" in the headline. We cannot base our content on such material. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Reading the SMH article, it’s clear that this cannot be dismissed as mere "claims". (1) The statements about the bullying were actually pretty high level, official even, not just chit chat, and (2) they were made by her former top staffer. As such, @Budgewoi: is right, this warrants inclusion, IMO. Boscaswell talk 08:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

But the article describes them as claims. Your analysis may well be correct, but would be original research. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I was merely describing the who and how the complaints were made as high level. That is obvious. The article could reflect what is says there either word for word or paraphrase and neither would be OR. The news article uses the word claim once, but goes into great depth as to the who and how. The article could reflect that quite easily and also legitimately. Look, it’s her former top staffer, not the office junior, who made the statements, and he made them officially. What he says is pretty damning. All of that makes what he says notable. Ergo, it should be in the article. No, I wouldn’t use "damning" in any edit. smh. Boscaswell talk 00:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed Lidia in general is viewed as a divisive, extreme left socialist who is literally doing her best to divide a conquer using "sovereign nations" as feeble and almost laughable attempt to win herself popularity. But instead pretty much everyone cannot stand even the sight of her. She has and will not get anything done for her own people.

This is unsourced and must be removed under wp:BLP.

It was added by the same IP who added this similar material, also since removed, and has no other contributions. Andrewa (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Good that it was removed. *thinks* I wonder whether it could be true? 😉 Boscaswell talk 22:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that it is true that she in general is viewed in that way, but I'm not a reliable source, and BLP is uncompromising on that. Andrewa (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Quite. And then along comes an RS which more or less covers every point made in the removed text. See my latest edits. Boscaswell talk 19:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

On matters such as this, Murdoch media is NOT an RS. I would like to bet they have never said anything positive about her. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh good grief, how stupid of me!!! *hits forehead*. I should have remembered. Nothing even allegedly right wing (which news.com.au is, *allegedly* right wing. And I’d consider it to be neither left nor right wing) …can *ever* be considered to be reliable, whilst all left wing sources are automatically deemed to be totally and absolutely 100% reliable in every way. I really must do better. *hits himself over the head* Boscaswell talk 09:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That is an idiotic, irresponsible and confrontational misrepresentation of what I wrote. You're not here to discuss this sensibly. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. You dismissed all of “the Murdoch media" as being in your opinion unreliable. I employed sarcasm in showing you why that view is unreasonable. If you wish to make confrontationally dismissive accusations like you did about "the Murdoch media", then you have no right at all to be upset when someone comes back to you to demolish your argument in a manner which you consider to be confrontational. Boscaswell talk 19:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

What I wrote about the Murdoch media was anything but a confrontationally dismissive accusation. It was the absolute truth. And I challenged you to prove me wrong with "I would like to bet they have never said anything positive about her." Have they? Over to you. If you can find anything from the Murdoch media saying something positive about Thorpe, I will change my position. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48 So why would the Murdoch media say anything positive about Thorpe? That they don’t does not make them unreliable. news.com.au is in your opinion right wing. I consider it to be centre leaning right. It was critical of ScoMo. Has MSNBC or CNN or even our own ABC ever said anything positive about Donald Trump? Yet they are all "RS's". Your opinion is just that, it is opinion. Clearly you are not going to allow anything which you consider to be right wing to pass go. That isn’t acceptable in this collaborative venture, to which those of various beliefs contribute, is it. You will have seen that the quoted words I reinstated today are but a fraction of those deleted by another left wing "I delete anything I consider to be right wing" editor. So…play fair? If you have a comment on her which is positive, comes from somewhere acceptable and is not undue, then edit it in? But let something you don’t like pass. My edit was fair. Please do me the courtesy of pinging or summat like that in any response. And please leave anger out of it; your ill-tempered reversion edit summary refers. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 08:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't care enough about this to go through the labour of defending my earlier deletion of the text, but by saying "Is there anything in any of the bikie broadsheets?" in your edit summary, Boscaswell, you are essentially admitting that you are editing from a biased perspective. Wikipedia is a place for articles spoken from a neutral tone. Hildebrand is a conservative opinion columnist who attacks this specific political party relatively consistently and I would argue is not consistent with the mainstream view of her defection. I simply cannot assume you are editing in good faith. In future, do better than to seek to provoke in your edit summaries, it is really embarrassing on your part. J2m5 (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have just unfortunately read what you have written above. "You will have seen that the quoted words I reinstated today are but a fraction of those deleted by another left wing "I delete anything I consider to be right wing" editor. So…play fair?" ... I hope you are not referring to me. I don't remember ever stating that I removed it because I am "left wing." Nonetheless, Wikipedia is not the place for politically centrist coverage, and it is okay to represent "right wing" perspectives, just not as a solitary voice - the current inclusion of the quote makes it appear as if it is something of a universal criticism. As I have written above, Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of provocation in talk pages and edit summaries, please be professional and courteous, and stop embarrassing yourself! J2m5 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Newscorp lies about The Greens. This is well documented. I can't be bothered digging up examples, but I know that at least some are recorded somewhere in Wikipedia. It has no credibility in this area. There is absolutely no point including a negative comment about a Greens politician from a NewsCorp journalist. It proves nothing. As I said earlier, if you can find anything from the Murdoch media saying something positive about Thorpe, I will change my position. Why do you want to include that content? HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

PS: Found this about NewsCorp - Herald Sun#Australian Greens policy on drugs. Have a read, then declare it can be trusted in this area of commentary. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Mental Health Issues

Why is there no reference to her mental health issues and treatment? 171.255.77.83 (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Source? And relevance? HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable secondary source it's a reasonable assumption that there's "no reference" to it because you made it up. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Page protection

Good call with locking this page. As the referendum comes up this year this page will see more and more vandalism. Best to keep an eye on it. Poketama (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Controversies Section or Similar

I'm aware of the trend away from a reductionist 'controversies' section, however I believe at this point there is so much left uncaptured by this article that the neutrality is severely impacted. I understand many of her actions can and should be spoken to through a political lens, but some of the 'antics' for lack of a better term end up falling through the cracks when there is no political connection. I don't see how hurling racial abuse and threatening young people in front of a strip club at 3am because a group of black men had a white friend can be logically extrapolated from descriptions of her political slant. It doesn't fit under activism, where does it go? 111.220.140.142 (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Your position on Thorpe is so far from objective, you really shouldn't be trying to contribute to this article. Please read WP:NPOV. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions on controversies

There is going to continue to be additions on controversies that Thorpe is involved in. A pattern I've seen on this page is huge paragraphs written about one controversy with citations to one right-wing source. (especially Sky News). A few problems

1. You can't rely on only one source, especially a notoriously biased one. I would say the same if someone was using the Green Left newspaper as a sole source. eg. I did some searching and honestly have no clue if the bloke on Sky News saying he's Thorpe's father actually is.
2. You need to consider whether this event is notable enough to warrant such a large addition to the page, or it becomes unbalanced. eg.There's much more text in the newly added section on Thorpe having a stoush at a strip club than Thorpe leaving the Greens. One is obviously more consequential.

You're gonna have to do better than this, this is a BLP and controversies are by their nature...controversial. If you can't write a balanced view of events because of lack of information, you can write a very basic neutral statement or leave it off. Poketama (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

After having a look over the article its actually mostly just listing controversies, so I'm gonna move those to a controversies section. It seems that this page has just been built up of people adding controversial news as it happens and not writing anything else about what a politician might be doing. Poketama (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The small paragraph about the strip club incident had multiple news sources, feel free to check them again. To characterise it as all being from Sky News is false. It is being covered by virtually every news outlet except ABC who only reported the Prime Minister's comments days later. And it was balanced, I wrote both her version and the manager's version, how much more balanced can you get.

Regarding her father, the only interview he did was with Sky News. If ABC or another left-wing source interviewed him, then we could use it. news.com.au is reporting him as her father, so is the Courier Mail, so is the Herald Sun. It's ironic that you mention citing the Greens, because the Greens website is heavily used a source on this article. Also a political party's newspaper would hardly be the same as Sky News. Is Sky News a prohibited source on wikipedia? There is no good reason for us to doubt his identity. If you doubt his identity then why not doubt the mother's identity too. At the very least, we should say something about her father's identity being unconfirmed, but believed to be Roy Illingworth. It's very unusual to just say a mother's name on its own.

It's not wikipedia's fault if Lidia Thorpe is notable mainly for her controversies. What notable work she has done as a senator is a good question, feel free to include it if you find any. But you can't delete A just because you think there should be more B. RustlingLeaves (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Sky News, News.com.au, Courier Mail, Herald Sun, are all the same company.

2. Green Left newspaper is not the Greens.

3. Please review this page. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons There is a high standard of evidence for biographies of living persons, you cannot speculate, use tabloid sources, or present an unbalanced article.

4. I have not deleted controversies I have removed the fluff that is unnecessary on an encyclopedia. Go to a good quality politicians page and you will not see paragraphs upon paragraphs of tabloid controversies.

5. ABC is a reliable non-partisan source.

6. For the reliability of Sky News see here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources Poketama (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your version says "Thorpe claimed the men provoked the altercation by approaching and racially abusing her, while the manager of the club claimed she approached the men and provoked the altercation".

1. Where in the sources cited does it say that Lidia claimed the men racially abused her?

2. If Lidia's version gives specifics, why doesn't the manager's version give specifics? It should be balanced, remember.RustlingLeaves (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Balance does not mean quoting everyone who shouts loudly about something. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The manager of the club in question, the one who banned her, is not just anyone. He is integral to the story. And he didn't shout loudly, he said this when interviewed by 7News. He certainly didn't shout any louder than Lidia Thorpe did that night. RustlingLeaves (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your lack of obectivity seems to be showing, as is your failure to understand metaphor. We are discussing this at very different levels, and from very different perspectives. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It was a joke. You suggested that the actual manager who banned her and gave his explanation in a 7News interview about banning her, was "everyone who shouts loudly". Do you agree that the manager is relevant to the story and not an uninvolved commentator? RustlingLeaves (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not suggest that the actual manager who banned her and gave his explanation in a 7News interview about banning her, was "everyone who shouts loudly". HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Then who were you talking about? The context where you said it was me talking about the manager's explanation for banning her. RustlingLeaves (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Some politicians do their job by merely stating their preferred policy and debating it. At the other end of the spectrum, some politicians use controversy whenever they have the opportunity, to make their point, and somehow cannot help but be controversial. In either case, this is how they are. Most politicians fall in between these two extremes, but there are examples at both ends of the spectrum. I would be surprised if many considered the subject of this BLP to be within the two extremes. As such, if all the controversial actions were moved out of the political career section to the controversies section, would there be anything left? If someone uses controversy as a political tool, is description of that activity not best left in the political career section? When Lidia Thorpe marches in to the Senate with fist held high and head bowed, she is being controversial, but she is making a political statement. When Lidia Thorpe lays down on the road at Mardi Gras, she is being controversial, but she is making a political statement. Etc etc. Boscaswell talk 06:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good point you made there. Some politicians (and some non-politicians) pretty much use controversy as their stock-in-trade. This means that when someone like Thorpe does something controversial, it often isn't particularly newsworthy. It's just what she does in her (almost) daily life. We cannot possibly report on everything controversial that Thorpe does. That would be undue. The same applies to, and overlaps with, all the negative things that are reported about her by NewsCorp alone. We have to be discerning, and select content for her article that is significant, and reported in multiple sources. (I count all NewsCorp outlets as only one source.) The measure here needs to be whether what she did was significant politically in the medium to long term. Was it a change of mind on something. A new policy on a new issue? Those belong in the article. Doing something that only NewsCorp wants to tells us about in a negative way doesn't. This means that we should end up with less of a daily log of sensational things she has done. I don't think we even need a separate Controversies section. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Lidia's father

Multiple news sources report that Lidia's father is Roy Illingworth. The Australian, Courier Mail, Herald Sun, Sky News, news.com.au, Northern Territory News. It is very unusual to list only her mother. When her father was deleted we even got left with a syntax error. "born to and Marjorie Thorpe". When can we name her father, what news sources are we waiting for? RustlingLeaves (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

These are all papers owned by NewsCorp quoting the talk-show on Sky. Generally, talk-show pundits are not considered reliable. I'd be interested to hear if others think that NewsCorp quoting NewsCorp give it any credibility, as it is true that some NewsCorp papers are more reliable than others.

However, it's not very unusual to list only her mother if we don't know who the father is. In a BLP we have to have a high standard of evidence, and I don't think this is good enough. Poketama (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I found it sourced in The Australian, and The Australian is listed as green and reliable on WP:RSP. Do you think we should list neither instead? If we're only going to list the mother it's conspicuous that we're not mentioning her father. Or we could say his identity is unconfirmed. Given they're estranged it's unlikely she will confirm it. And even if she did how would we know it was true. RustlingLeaves (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't care what WP:RSP says. The Australian is an appalling source for anything to do with The Greens and/or Thorpe, even Labor. It lies. You really need a better source. And I can assure you that anyone with an objective view of political coverage in Australia is going to agree with me. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't need a better source according to WP:RSP, and that is the standard we are using in this article to exclude sources. RustlingLeaves (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

A significant proportion of Australians these days (and Americans, and Brits) are extremely contemptuous of anything from Rupert Murdoch. As soon as they see a source from NewsCorp, they will be very sceptical. Can you not find anything else? HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest a more significant proportion of Australians wouldn't know which newspapers are owned by who. I can't find it on any non-NewsCorp paper, because her (alleged?) father was interviewed by Sky so all the NewsCorp brands are citing the interview. The Sky interview is, I believe, the first time her father has been named publicly, though I've seen rumours pre-dating it. Obviously other outlets don't want to touch it, or maybe aren't allowed to touch it because it's an exclusive. But given The Australian is Green status in WP:RSP, I don't think it matters what a significant portion of Australians think of it. Unless it changes colour in WP:RSP, it's good to go. RustlingLeaves (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Without a non-Murdoch source, it won't be seen as a strong claim by a lot of our readers. Is that what you want? HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's our business to worry what a section of readers think of a source beyond what's in WP:RSP. If readers choose to dismiss it based on source (those that even check the source) that's their call.

The source for her mother is currently the Sydney Morning Herald, which has been openly partisan before, so I'm sure a certain section of readers don't like that either, but it's green.

We're talking about something as basic as parentage, surely we assume it's accurate unless demonstrated otherwise. I don't think any source for her genealogy provided birth certificates.

Sky News / NewsCorp are the ones who tracked him down and interviewed him, maybe even paid him. Or maybe he went to them. But other outlets don't have anything to report about him independently, they'd only be reporting on a competitor's interview. RustlingLeaves (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Again I point out that NewsCorp's goal is always going to be to publish negative material about Thorpe, whether it's the truth or not. (I challenge you to find something positive about her from that entire organisation.) If it's is as obvious as you say who her father is, there MUST be other sources about it! HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Her father's name isn't negative. His opinion of Thorpe may be negative, but we haven't mentioned that, we've only said his name. RustlingLeaves (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Well done for standing your ground, RustlingLeaves. The words "most readers" don’t like it is an opinion, WP:DONTLIKEIT refers. I’ve had similar exchanges with the same editor. Boscaswell talk 06:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I shall set you the same challenge. Show us something positive any NewsCorp outlet has ever published about Thorpe, or anyone associated with The Greens. 06:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This challenge is irrelevant to what's being discussed. We understand you don't like Newscorp sources. But you aren't the standard, WP:RSP is the standard. The source for her father's name, The Australian, is a green-lit source. There is nothing negative about the name Roy Illingworth.RustlingLeaves (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Why does no non-NewsCorp source provide that information? HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Because no non-Newscorp source interviewed him and published his name like Newscorp did. You'll have to ask them why they didn't. RustlingLeaves (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete link to official website: Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

I work for Senator Lidia Thorpe. She has requested you please remove the link to the Official Website. She is no longer in the Greens Party. We will send link to new official website when it is online. Thanks, Joe Jsolidarity (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove official website

Please remove the Greens party website link from the Official Website link. Senator Lidia Thorpe does not currently have an official website. We will share the new website with you once it is online. Thanks! Jsolidarity (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Per request for WP:RS: there's many but this one will do. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Citations needed

I recently added some citations and removed the citation needed tags that were no longer relevant. Can anyone work out why these were reverted? Burrobert (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Having received no response, I have now reinstated the references that were removed. Burrobert (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Lidia Thorpe's birth month and year

This article [4]https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/lidia-thorpe-set-to-quit-politics-when-her-term-expires/b7k070prj dated 10th July 2023 quotes Thorpe saying that "50 next month", implying that she was born in August 1973. Currently her Wiki article only states that she was born in 1973. I do not know how to correctly edit birth years and months on Wikipedia articles – otherwise, I would have done so already. The expert on everything (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Poketama (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Australian Aboriginal Flag

Thorpe with partially visible flag

Thorpe is often seen with a red, black and yellow flag, colors which are used on the flags of Belgium, Germany and probably other countries, plus other uses. If the flag can not be seen in full, it is hard to figure out what it is. Could someone please add that the flag used by her is the Australian Aboriginal Flag? "A horizontal bi-colour of black and red with a yellow disc in the centre". Thanks in advance. 217.250.226.64 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)